<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (7) TMI 207 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774139</link>
    <description>A cheque issued as security is not immune from Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if it is voluntarily signed and delivered and liability exists when presented; statutory presumptions under Sections 139 and 20 may apply unless rebutted with cogent evidence. Once CIRP commences, the moratorium and suspension of management bar initiation or continuation of a Section 138 complaint against the corporate debtor, and directors cannot be vicariously prosecuted under Section 141 where the company itself is not prosecutable as principal offender. Dishonour recorded as &quot;drawer&#039;s signature differs&quot; in the context of insolvency control did not sustain the complaint, which was held not maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2025 08:38:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=833667" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 207 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774139</link>
      <description>A cheque issued as security is not immune from Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if it is voluntarily signed and delivered and liability exists when presented; statutory presumptions under Sections 139 and 20 may apply unless rebutted with cogent evidence. Once CIRP commences, the moratorium and suspension of management bar initiation or continuation of a Section 138 complaint against the corporate debtor, and directors cannot be vicariously prosecuted under Section 141 where the company itself is not prosecutable as principal offender. Dishonour recorded as &quot;drawer&#039;s signature differs&quot; in the context of insolvency control did not sustain the complaint, which was held not maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>